[talk-au] Mapping "off track" hiking routes
brenbarnes at gmail.com
Sat Oct 24 03:49:50 UTC 2020
Thanks all for the discussion. I can see there will be further separate
discussion around the OSM mapping of landowner-unsanctioned tracks/paths.
Back to my original post which I was seeking advice on, I was requesting
clarity of mapping an official hiking route, which a small section of it
happens to not follow a defined track/path and a compass bearing is
required. The hiking route is *official*: it has NSW NPWS signage which I
have personally surveyed at the start of the segment denoting the "off
track" route, the Australian Alps National Parks Cooperative Management
Program publishes a map also detailing it, and all popular hiking guides
have it listed, too. This small off track section forms part of the
I've taken Andrew's advice and added fuzzy=500 to the way.
On Sat, 24 Oct 2020 at 14:14, Brendan Barnes <brenbarnes at gmail.com> wrote:
> Hey Greg,
> I agree we shouldn't tag for the renderer. Have you looked at lifecycle
> tags such as was:highway=path? A lifecycle prefix like this does a good
> job with Carto, OsmAnd, and other renderers and not using those former
> (formal or informal) paths for browsing or routing by end users. However
> they can show up in OSM editors for mappers to see the history and note.
> On Sat, 24 Oct 2020 at 12:17, Greg Lauer <gregory.lauer at gmail.com> wrote:
>> Within this group we are 'experienced' mappers and in most cases familiar
>> with the various OSM mapping tools, and may even use these to plan a trip.
>> Where is the general public use apps (such as MapsMe, Guru ect) that are
>> really dependent on what the apps render displays. I have not seen any apps
>> that, for example, display any attribute (or graphic) to show a track is
>> So the tagging of trails is not visible to most users, and we have the
>> issue of maintaining the tags as they are usually fluid (open, closed etc),
>> The real world example for me is riding in the local forest in SE QLD and
>> seeing other riders blindly following MapsMe on tracks that are closed (and
>> tagged as such but not visible on the map).
>> I am not suggesting a 'tagging to render' regime but just tagging a trail
>> as closed is not having the effect we think it does. Short of adding an
>> attribution to the trail name I am not sure how we resolve? Example xyz
>> trail [Closed]
>> It would be great to see our state land management agencies follow the
>> lead of DoC in NZ (https://www.doc.govt.nz/our-work/maps-and-data/) or
>> USGS (https://pubs.er.usgs.gov/publication/70192717) and make
>> the relevant data open (and current!), and encourage crowd sourcing.
>> On Sat, Oct 24, 2020 at 8:37 AM Andrew Harvey <andrew.harvey4 at gmail.com>
>>> On Sat, 24 Oct 2020 at 07:24, <forster at ozonline.com.au> wrote:
>>>> Hi Andrew
>>>> Trail closed signage will be rapidly destroyed, often in a few days.
>>>> Placing trail closed signage at a trail start makes the start of
>>>> illegal trails more visible and attracts traffic.
>>> It's a catch-22 then, without the signage then it's per the law not
>>> illegal to use. To be honest I don't think placing a trail closed sign at
>>> the trail start makes it more visible and attracts traffic, many people
>>> will see that sign and choose not walk there, compared to no signage when
>>> they'd be like oh there's a track here, nothing to say it can't be used.
>>>> A park will often
>>>> have signage at all entrances which says "keep to formed trails" which
>>>> can be ambiguous especially to a mapper who believes in mapping
>>> "keep to formed trails" but those illegally constructed tracks look like
>>> formed trails to many users of the park, so keeping to the formed trails to
>>> me still allows me to walk on the illegally constructed tracks.
>>>> Parks will refer you to a copyright map of legal trails and have
>>>> difficulty understanding why you can't use that as evidence.
>>> I don't want to be the enemy here, I'm all for preserving sensitive
>>> landscapes to prevent damage and erosion, where a track has legally been
>>> closed then we should mark it as access=no which data consumers should
>>> treat that as no open to the public.
>>> I can sympathise with the park operator, why should they have to be
>>> constantly monitoring for any signs of a track anywhere in the park and
>>> installing signage everywhere, why can't they say these are the areas we
>>> authorise everywhere else is not authorised, I guess they can install
>>> signage to that effect. I guess that's one use case there of OSM for park
>>> operators, it can help alert you of where tracks are forming that you might
>>> not have intentionally created.
>>> Talk-au mailing list
>>> Talk-au at openstreetmap.org
>> Talk-au mailing list
>> Talk-au at openstreetmap.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Talk-au